A rape case in Ireland has sparked outrage after a teenager's thong was used to suggest consent. The man was acquitted after his defence barrister said the 17-year-old's lace-fronted thong implied she was open to having sex. Since the trial, hundreds of women have shared photographs of their own underwear in protest, and Irish MP Ruth Coppinger even held some in parliament to highlight the issue.

The barrister should be struck off...the fact that she is a woman, and said in court that the lacy thong the girl wore was as good as her giving consent to sex is utterly ridiculous.Ireland, thanks to religion, is still backwards when it comes to sexual issues.

Disgraceful, what you wear has nothing to do with rape.How would he know she was wearing a thong when he first saw her.I know the lawyer has to do all they can to defend their client but that defence would be bad enough coming from a man, from a woman its unthinkable. I think there are few woman who haven't been sexually harassed let alone assaulted or at worst raped including maybe this lawyer, unless she has been extremely lucky.She should have as many letters of protest as we can all manage.

So, but it worked? Didn't I understand the female announcer to say the point "helped clear a man of rape"? That means the 'consensual thong' defense worked.

Rape is always a crime, any defense of which is going to piss people off. The victim's prior sex life; incapacity; mistaken identity; consent? Nobody likes the defenses to rape because they invade the privacy and tell a story about the victim. This is just another way to prove 'she wanted it."

The mother of teenage rape victim who took her own life after being forced to hold up her underwear in court has said she is “appalled” by a recent case in Ireland that has prompted widespread protests.

Thousands of women have shared images of their underwear on Twitter, with the hashtag #this is not consent, following a case in Cork in which a lawyer used an alleged rape victim’s choice of underwear to argue that she consented to sex.

Demonstrations have been held in the UK and the Republic since a 27-year-old man was acquitted after jurors were told his alleged 17-year-old victim was “wearing a thong with a lace front”.

The case has parallels with a trial in Scotland in 2002 in which a 15-year-old boy was found guilty of raping 17-year-old Lindsay Armstrong. She committed suicide two weeks after the court case.

Her parents Linda Armstrong and Frank Ferguson, from New Cumnock in Ayrshire, who found her dead in her bed, said she felt she had been "raped all over again" during a trial that had left her “humiliated and degraded”.

The Scottish teenager had to hold up her thong and was asked to read the slogan on the front, which said: “Little Devil.”

Ms Armstrong, 55, told the Telegraph she assumed the experience her daughter endured no longer happened.

She added: “I am shocked this kind of thing is still being used as evidence. I learned about the case when a friend sent the story to me. It brought all the bad memories back. I just thought I can’t believe they are still bringing this up.

“I don’t think the girl’s underwear was shown in court in Ireland whereas Lindsay had to hold her underwear up three times.”

Her daughter was raped in a park near her home in September 2001, when her attacker was aged 14. He was jailed for four years after a trial the following year.

Ms Armstrong, who is separated from Lindsay’s father, vividly recalls her daughter’s experience.

“Lindsay was made to hold up her underwear three times,” she said. “She had said that he had ripped her underwear off, not literally meaning ripped. She just meant he had pulled it off her.

“They said she had to hold up her thong to prove that her underwear wasn’t ripped, to make out she was a liar.

“But when Lindsay picked them up she said she hardly recognised them because they were covered in cuts from where DNA samples had been taken. So it wasn’t really to prove they weren't ripped, because they were damaged.

“She was so embarrassed and she was crying and she put them down. She was then told to hold them up again.

“After that he (the defence lawyer) told her to pick them up again and read out what was written on the front. That was nothing to do with whether they were ripped or not.”

She remembers her daughter being “hysterical” after giving evidence, but said she could not say whether she would still be here today if that experience had not happened to her.

Ms Armstrong said she thought about her every day and could not believe any jury would pay attention in 2018 to the type of underwear an alleged victim was wearing.

She added: “It is disgusting if a jury took into consideration that a girl was wearing a thong. They should hang there heads in shame if they considered it.”

According to a report in the Irish Examiner on November 6, Elizabeth O’Connell, a defence lawyer, told the jury in the Cork case: “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

Vintage wrote:Disgraceful, what you wear has nothing to do with rape.How would he know she was wearing a thong when he first saw her.I know the lawyer has to do all they can to defend their client but that defence would be bad enough coming from a man, from a woman its unthinkable. I think there are few woman who haven't been sexually harassed let alone assaulted or at worst raped including maybe this lawyer, unless she has been extremely lucky.She should have as many letters of protest as we can all manage.

Agree with you and Syl. It is an utter disgrace. As what she wore is not a sign of consent. Nor should it even be considered.

It's hard to believe that a jury could count this as evidence that the young girl consented because of what she was wearing.Not to cast doubt on her claim that she was raped, but I wonder what other evidence the defence barrister came up with.

The other case Didge mentioned, where the poor girl committed suicide after her ordeal.What legal person in their right mind would think forcing a young girl to hold up her own knickers in court (three times) in order to try to make her look like a liar, would ever do that?Obviously every lawyer wants to win their case, but surely there has to be some moral code in court....it's absolutely repulsive that in so called civilised countries rape victims are treated so worthlessly.It's like something out of the dark ages.

Syl wrote:What legal person in their right mind would think forcing a young girl to hold up her own knickers in court (three times) in order to try to make her look like a liar, would ever do that?

It's the job. If you lose, and the perp goes to prison, you get sued for malpractice if you didn't do all that was necessary.

This is Eire. In America, there are a round of rape-shield laws that limit cross-examination of the victim's prior sexual behavior, as well as protect the identity of victims in the press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

The only instance where prior sexual behaviour should be relevant is if the man has raped before or if the woman has falsely accused a man of rape previouly, but I doubt that information would be allowed to be known prior anyway.

A womans sexual history, the clothes she was or was not wearing, whether she was drunk or sober, none of that should be relevant. If a man has had sex with her against her will or without her consent...it's rape.

It's the job. If you lose, and the perp goes to prison, you get sued for malpractice if you didn't do all that was necessary.

This is Eire. In America, there are a round of rape-shield laws that limit cross-examination of the victim's prior sexual behavior, as well as protect the identity of victims in the press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

The only instance where prior sexual behaviour should be relevant is if the man has raped before or if the woman has falsely accused a man of rape previouly, but I doubt that information would be allowed to be known prior anyway.

A womans sexual history, the clothes she was or was not wearing, whether she was drunk or sober, none of that should be relevant. If a man has had sex with her against her will or without her consent...it's rape.

Syl wrote:The only instance where prior sexual behaviour should be relevant is if the man has raped before or if the woman has falsely accused a man of rape previouly, but I doubt that information would be allowed to be known prior anyway.

A womans sexual history, the clothes she was or was not wearing, whether she was drunk or sober, none of that should be relevant. If a man has had sex with her against her will or without her consent...it's rape.

Good for you. Go to work and change the law.

Nah, i am an armchair lawyer Quill, you must know some of them yourself.

It's the job. If you lose, and the perp goes to prison, you get sued for malpractice if you didn't do all that was necessary.

This is Eire. In America, there are a round of rape-shield laws that limit cross-examination of the victim's prior sexual behavior, as well as protect the identity of victims in the press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

The only instance where prior sexual behaviour should be relevant is if the man has raped before or if the woman has falsely accused a man of rape previouly, but I doubt that information would be allowed to be known prior anyway.

A womans sexual history, the clothes she was or was not wearing, whether she was drunk or sober, none of that should be relevant. If a man has had sex with her against her will or without her consent...it's rape.

Yes, but the problem is proving it. In some cases it's fairly obvious but in other cases, like this one, it's her word against his word, and that's not enough. That's why the defence will try to convince the jury of the likelihood that she consented and to do that they will bring up her past and even her underwear.

Syl wrote:The only instance where prior sexual behaviour should be relevant is if the man has raped before or if the woman has falsely accused a man of rape previouly, but I doubt that information would be allowed to be known prior anyway.

A womans sexual history, the clothes she was or was not wearing, whether she was drunk or sober, none of that should be relevant. If a man has had sex with her against her will or without her consent...it's rape.

Yes, but the problem is proving it. In some cases it's fairly obvious but in other cases, like this one, it's her word against his word, and that's not enough. That's why the defence will try to convince the jury of the likelihood that she consented and to do that they will bring up her past and even her underwear.

Obviously not all rape cases can be proven/disproven by actual evidence , especially historic rapes that may have happened decades ago, so I understand that the way the victim/accused presents themselves can help decide a juries mind on who is telling the truth.The problem here is when a jury is so easily convinced that the knickers the girl was wearing in some indication that she was agreeing to sex.When tactics like this are used in court it's farcical, and the woman defence lawyer should face disciplinary action imo.Statistics show only one in ten rapes are ever reported in the first place...when cases like this make the news is it any wonder?

Actually, it's the job of a legislator, not a lawyer, to change the law. You don't need a doctor of laws in order to run for the legislature.

The law is pretty clear. If a man rapes a woman, ie has sex without her consent or against her will... he is a rapist.

You just gave two huge reasons why the law is not clear at all. 1) consent; and 2) against her will.

The problem with the crime of rape is that, in other circumstances it is not only agreeable, but desirable. Sex is a part of love and marriage; it is also a form of abuse in other circumstances. I mean, in what other crime would the victim want to be robbed, swindled or beaten...or whatever the befallen harm? But in the crime of rape, the event happens in two ways: one, highly favorable; two, highly unfavorable. So, proof or defense of the crime of rape has this huge pitfall right from the start.

The issue of character comes up immediately. A woman with a relaxed moral reputation would be expected to consent more readily than a woman with a rigid moral character. The knickers suggest a more relaxed, even suggestive moral character. She's a girl who likes her fun!

Such moral precepts are carried around in the minds of jurors everyday...ie, when they are not jurors. So, when the juror comes to court, the lawyer tries to draw out these feelings. In a murder or larceny case, there is no ambiguity such as with rape. But the big question in a rape case is, which was it: was it love and affection, or hostility?

What the law tries to do, therefore, is focus on the act and actions during the event. Did she consent; or more importantly, did she say 'no'? Did she kick and scream? Did he hold, or tie her down? But, then there's S/M. So, reputation is still present: does she like it rough? Thus, you can't leave aside the backgrounds of the participants fully.

Last edited by Original Quill on Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:05 pm; edited 3 times in total

Raggamuffin wrote:Is it certain that's why the jury decided he wasn't guilty? It might have had nothing to do with it. You have to be careful about press spin.

Yes I asked that yesterday, Didge posted a link but it wouldnt open.I found a report but to me the evidence given was more in the womans favour than the mans, which makes it even harder to understand how he was acquitted.

"After the accused man told his senior counsel Ms Elizabeth O’Connell that what happened was consensual, he was cross-examined by Tom Creed SC for the prosecution.

Commenting on the night in question, the defendant said they were kissing and he said they "felt attracted to one another on the night.” Mr Creed said: “There is not one person who saw you kissing.” The defendant named one man who allegedly did see them kissing but this person did not give evidence in the trial.

Mr Creed said.. “A witness saw you with your hand to her throat.” The defendant said that was not correct. He said the witness misread the situation. "

Raggamuffin wrote:Is it certain that's why the jury decided he wasn't guilty? It might have had nothing to do with it. You have to be careful about press spin.

Yes I asked that yesterday, Didge posted a link but it wouldnt open.I found a report but to me the evidence given was more in the womans favour than the mans, which makes it even harder to understand how he was acquitted.

"After the accused man told his senior counsel Ms Elizabeth O’Connell that what happened was consensual, he was cross-examined by Tom Creed SC for the prosecution.

Commenting on the night in question, the defendant said they were kissing and he said they "felt attracted to one another on the night.” Mr Creed said: “There is not one person who saw you kissing.” The defendant named one man who allegedly did see them kissing but this person did not give evidence in the trial.

Mr Creed said.. “A witness saw you with your hand to her throat.” The defendant said that was not correct. He said the witness misread the situation. "

Yes I asked that yesterday, Didge posted a link but it wouldnt open.I found a report but to me the evidence given was more in the womans favour than the mans, which makes it even harder to understand how he was acquitted.

"After the accused man told his senior counsel Ms Elizabeth O’Connell that what happened was consensual, he was cross-examined by Tom Creed SC for the prosecution.

Commenting on the night in question, the defendant said they were kissing and he said they "felt attracted to one another on the night.” Mr Creed said: “There is not one person who saw you kissing.” The defendant named one man who allegedly did see them kissing but this person did not give evidence in the trial.

Mr Creed said.. “A witness saw you with your hand to her throat.” The defendant said that was not correct. He said the witness misread the situation. "

That's only part of the evidence though. You'd have to know all of it, like the jury, and you'd have to know why the jury acquitted him. I don't think they give reasons in Ireland do they?

I dont know if or how Irish court laws differ from English ones.It would be interesting to read the full transcript of the case, there surely has to be some reason why 12 ordinary people decided the girl was lying and the man didn't rape her.

That's only part of the evidence though. You'd have to know all of it, like the jury, and you'd have to know why the jury acquitted him. I don't think they give reasons in Ireland do they?

I dont know if or how Irish court laws differ from English ones.It would be interesting to read the full transcript of the case, there surely has to be some reason why 12 ordinary people decided the girl was lying and the man didn't rape her.

I presume they thought he wasn't proved to be guilty. The onus is on the prosecution to produce evidence that he's guilty, and perhaps they couldn't.

I dont know if or how Irish court laws differ from English ones.It would be interesting to read the full transcript of the case, there surely has to be some reason why 12 ordinary people decided the girl was lying and the man didn't rape her.

I presume they thought he wasn't proved to be guilty. The onus is on the prosecution to produce evidence that he's guilty, and perhaps they couldn't.

I wonder if the witness who claimed he saw the man with his hand on the girls throat came forwards.Or if the other witness who asked if everything was all right and was told by the man "What the fuck does it look like. Mind your own business."It seems there was at least 3 'witnesses' around at the time, it's not clear how many actually gave evidence.

I presume they thought he wasn't proved to be guilty. The onus is on the prosecution to produce evidence that he's guilty, and perhaps they couldn't.

I wonder if the witness who claimed he saw the man with his hand on the girls throat came forwards.Or if the other witness who asked if everything was all right and was told by the man "What the fuck does it look like. Mind your own business."It seems there was at least 3 'witnesses' around at the time, it's not clear how many actually gave evidence.

Discussions with jurors after the verdict are, or can be really informative. Sometimes you have one take on a scene, and the jury (or a juror) sees it in a completely different light.

Hand on a throat, for example, is a really sexy gesture when done softly and with passion. It's a gesture often used in films.

What's even worse than that lawyer's actions in this case -- and the judge allowing it...

Is that the jury accepted the defence's arguments..

I'm as outraged as you are, perhaps even more so, but on the assumption that Irish law is very similar to UK law given the history of the two nations, the judge would have had no alternative.

In any case, neither you nor I were in the court and have nothing on which to base an opinion other than media coverage and social media speculation, so I would question your implied certainty of the guilt of the accused in accordance to the evidence.

I wonder if the witness who claimed he saw the man with his hand on the girls throat came forwards.Or if the other witness who asked if everything was all right and was told by the man "What the fuck does it look like. Mind your own business."It seems there was at least 3 'witnesses' around at the time, it's not clear how many actually gave evidence.

Discussions with jurors after the verdict are, or can be really informative. Sometimes you have one take on a scene, and the jury (or a juror) sees it in a completely different light.

Hand on a throat, for example, is a really sexy gesture when done softly and with passion. It's a gesture often used in films.

Does US law allow "discussions with jurors" post verdict?

My field is the law as it applies to the news media and journalism, but I was always taught that what happens or is said in the jury room is subject to the highest level of secrecy.

My field is the law as it applies to the news media and journalism, but I was always taught that what happens or is said in the jury room is subject to the highest level of secrecy.

That's the Grand Jury, when things are still pending. Secrecy is only necessary when it might affect the outcome; otherwise, the bias is toward transparency and openness. After a trial jury renders it's verdict, all factual questions are answered. So there is no harm in discussing things with them.

Of course, it's subject to permission. Some jurors don't like it. Indeed, some judges don't like it either...think it's a bother. But, in the main the jurors love to tell the attorneys their feelings, or ask questions about excluded evidence, and why.

We were told it was absolutely forbidden to discuss the case with anyone apart from fellow jurors in the deliberation room during the trial.After the trial we could discuss what went on in court but what was discussed in private between the jurors was not to be divulged to anyone, even family.

Syl wrote:We were told it was absolutely forbidden to discuss the case with anyone apart from fellow jurors in the deliberation room during the trial.After the trial we could discuss what went on in court but what was discussed in private between the jurors was not to be divulged to anyone, even family.

The only difference in America is that the discussion, post-trial, may take place with anyone...unless, for cause, the judge prohibits disclosure of all or part of the proceedings. Only in pre-trial, is communication about the case absolutely prohibited.

America has always been an open society, with any inhibition on 'open court' proceedings being the exceptions, and needing explanation....and given the First Amendment, openness and free speech have always been the preference.